SSS v CA

Facts:
Respondent Rago worked as electrician for Legend Engineering in Basak, Pardo, Cebu
City. While working on the ceiling of a building, he stepped on a ceiling joist, which gave
way and led to the crashing of Rago into the corridor 12 feet below. X-rays were taken
revealing a fracture and a slight kyphosis. He was confined thereafter first in Perpetual
Succour Hospital for 24 days and in his home for 8 months (Dec 93 - Aug 94)
SSS granted him a lump sum for only having had 35 monthly contributions when he filed
for a claim for permanent partial disability. He made additional contributions and an
adjustment was resolved in his favor, from lump sum to monthly payments.
Then he filed a claim for Employees Compensation sickness benefit, which was approved
for a max of 120 days. Then he filed another claim to convert his SSS disability to EC
disability, which was thus resolved in his favor.
2 years later Rago claimed for the extension of his EC partial disability, and subsequently
filed several more requests for the adjustment of his partial disability to total disability.
These requests were denied by the SSS, based on the medical findings of the Cebu City
office that he was not totally prevented from engaging in any gainful occupation.
Rago filed with SSC a petition for total permanent disability. SSS argued against Rago,
stating the he had already been granted maximum partial disability benefits. SSS
recommended the denial of Ragos petition. SSC denied. Without filing a motion for
reconsideration, Rago appealed to the CA by filing a petition for review. CA reversed SSC
decision. SSS filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the CA should have
considered an order issued by the SSC denying Ragos petition. CA denied motion on the
ground that said order was an exercise of grave abuse of authority amounting to lack
and/or excess of jurisdiction. Commission knew of the petition for review pending before
CA when said order was issued. CA had jurisdiction then.
SSS assert that CA erred in disregarding that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a
prerequisite to the filing of a petition for review to enable the office concerned to pass upon
and correct its mistakes without intervention of the higher court. Rago argued that the word
may as used in the provision concerning the filing of a motion for reconsideration in the
SSCs 1997 Revised Rules of Procedure is not mandatory but merely permissive.
Issue:
W/N motion for reconsideration is a prereq to the petition for review.

Held:
We can construe Section 5, Rule VI as granting Rago, or any member of the System
aggrieved by the SSCs resolution, the option of filing a motion for reconsideration which
he may or may not exercise.
It now becomes apparent that the permissive nature of a motion for reconsideration with
the SSC must be read in conjunction with the requirements for judicial review, or the
conditions sine qua non before a party can institute certain civil actions. While Rago
certainly had the option to file a motion for reconsideration before the SSC, it was
nevertheless mandatory that he do so if he wanted to subsequently avail of judicial
remedies.
The policy of judicial bodies to give quasi-judicial agencies, such as the SSC, an
opportunity to correct its mistakes by way of motions for reconsideration or other statutory
remedies before accepting appeals therefrom finds extensive doctrinal support in the wellentrenched principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. This is but practical since
availing of administrative remedies entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier
disposition of controversies.